Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III calls the Weinberger incident "a powerful exception" to a general improvement in the atmosphere of tolerance over the last 10 years, but adds that "the incident--though ugly--may have brought home the importance of free speech for many."

Echoing Epps's feelings, senior Corporation member Hugh Calkins '45--who served as the seven-man governing body's point man during what he calls the "trouble days of the '60s and '70s"--says he was deeply disturbed by the Weinberger protests and feels the incident called for an official response. "But I view the current period as somewhat typical [as far as free speech problems]. I don't view the '80s as being very different from the average of the '50s, the '40s or the '30s."

Bok's letter--his seventh on university principles since he began the practice five years ago--takes the form of a fairly specific attack on the various defenses raised for heckling, many of which were used to defend the shouting down of Weinberger. To the argument that certain speakers have committed or overseen evils so terrible that they have forfeited their right to speak, Bok responds that "no one has the right to decide for others which speakers are to be heard or which public discussions deserve to take place."

*To the argument that officials like Weinberger have more free speech than others because of heavy media coverage--an argument he acknowledges--Bok retorts, "Truth will emerge more often from a process of free discussion and debate than it will if the government or any other group undertakes to decide which ideas will be heard and which will be suppressed."

And to the argument that hissing and heckling are themselves viable expressions of speech which deserve protection, Bok shows his fundamentally lawyerly approach to the issue by responding with the old chestnut, "'Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the point of my nose.' . . . If persons opposed to a speaker's policies wish to publicize that fact, they can do so in various ways that will not interfere with the lights of the speaker and the audience," such as peaceful picketing, petitions, or leafletting.

Few students or faculty interviewed said the content of Bok's letter was fairly predictable, but the president appears to be getting almost uniformly favorable response. "It made me feel proud to work here," says Mansfield, one of the professors most concerned about the Weinberger incident, adding that he appreciates the way Bok specifically attacked the arguments used to justify heckling. Those argument "seemed to me so poor an understanding of what free speech is al about--namely, an ability to listen. I thought that reaction was worse than the incident itself," Mansfield says.

Corporation member Andrew P. Heiskell '28 says, "I thought the letter was fine, dandy. I told him so. I think we [on the Corporation] all deplored [what happened to Weinberger]. If you're not going to let a guy speak, what's the point of having a university?"

Undergraduate Council Vice-Chairman Brian R. Melendez '86, who authored a 120-page report last spring on free speech which was delivered to top University officials, including Bok, says, "I'm happy about the letter. I'm not surprised by it." Although Melendez says he was originally concerned that Bok would ignore some of the arguments for heckling--"hecklers have certain rights as well, and those rights should be protected"--he feels that "President Bok's position is actually much closer to the Council's than most undergraduates might like to admit. I hope a lot of people read it."

But Pierce Professor of Psychology Richard J. Herrnstein, whose arguments that intelligence is genetically determined prompted students in the early '70s to label him racist and repeatedly shout him down in class, says that while he thinks "the letter is good . . . the University is pretty feeble in its efforts to protect free speech." On a day-to-day basis, free speech is not threatened, says Herrnstein, who recalls that he had to call in Cambridge and Harvard Police to try to keep order in his classroom. But in the controversial cases that put the ideal of free speech to the test, like Weinberger's visit, Harvard is pusillanimous, Herrnstein charges.

Others, though, doubt that there is anything but a consensus at Harvard about protecting free speech, noting that most of Weinberger's hecklers were not Harvard students. Womack, who calls Weinberger representative of this country's "frivolously malevolent policies" in Latin America, says he feels the entire Faculty opposes "deliberate efforts to drown out somebody."

Damon A. Silvers '86, a member of the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee who helped organize the Weinberger protests, says that he and other protestors only wanted "to make him feel uncomfortable . . . I can't think of a single person in the undergraduate community who's in favor of shouting speakers down."